UK development funding is being channeled into “less accountable” political systems prone to corruption and conflict as a result of the government’s use of US-style organizations to strengthen parliaments abroad, a committee of MPs warns.

In a report published
Tuesday, the parliamentary International Development Committee
said some of the most far-reaching foreign aid results stem from
low-cost, hands-on parliamentary strengthening abroad.

The Committee monitors the Department for International
Development’s (DfID) policies, expenditure and administration.

On corruption, Sir Malcolm Bruce, chair of the committee, said
the DfID must increase its efforts to make robust foreign
parliaments more central to its development programs.

He noted parliaments are not currently factored into the
department’s anti-corruption strategies, and said this needs to
change.

He stressed strong parliaments are crucial in tackling corruption
because they have the capacity to hold rogue governments to
account.

Americanization of UK development

The committee’s report acknowledged that the DfID is a prolific
contributor to parliamentary strengthening abroad, spending
roughly £22.5 million in 2014.

But it called for the body to take more precautions to ensure
long-term foreign aid is being extended to countries in need,
effectively by placing foreign parliaments “at the heart of
its governance work.”

The watchdog’s research, entitled “Parliamentary
Spending,” reveals that the DfID relies quite heavily on
American organizations to strengthen parliaments abroad.

Seven of the department’s 37 parliament enhancing projects have
been allocated to American agents, while only three have been
issued to British providers, according to the research.

Additionally, a list of primary DfID suppliers indicates that 55
percent of its spending in this area is channeled towards
organizations on US soil.

Commenting on the trend, the Committee said the DfID’s extensive
use of American organizations would likely promote and cultivate
“US models of democracy” abroad.

The report noted that Britain does not explicitly promote its
parliamentary system in developing nations. But it argued the US
does, citing USAID’s Consortium for Elections and Political
Process Strengthening (CEPPS) program as an example.

The scheme was set up to offer funding for American institutions
to promote democracy in developing nations.

The Committee’s report warned the CEPPS and National Endowment
for Democracy programs offer US organizations an advantage over
their UK counterparts.

Both intuitions are subsidized by American taxpayers, and are
powerfully positioned to win DfID contracts.

By contrast, Westminster institutions are generally unable to win
bids for American cash spent on promoting democracy in developing
states as much of the funding is reserved for key US
institutions, the report says.

The Committee’s research acknowledged large development
organizations such as the UN Development Program (UNDP) can be
beneficial if a slew of donors are involved in parliamentary
strengthening programs or if they relate to conflict-ridden or
fragile states.

But it suggested the DfID should commission smaller, more expert
organizations and take a more tailored approach to managing its
efforts to strengthen parliaments abroad.

It urged the DfID to cultivate greater links with UK suppliers
and massively increase its deployment of them between now and
2020.

“There is a demand for expertise from the ‘Westminster
brand,’ especially from Commonwealth countries, but funds are
funneled through large providers in other countries rather than
smaller expert organizations,” Bruce said.

“More thought should be given to the supply side and how to
build UK institutions into world class providers,” he added.

Problems with EU development

The Committee also raised concern regarding the European Union's
(EU) use of UK development funding.

At present, the EU accounts for over 25 percent of the DfID's
multilateral spending. UK taxpayers contribute roughly 15 percent
of the total the EU spends on strengthening parliaments in
developing nations.

The committee said it was highly concerned by criticisms it had
encountered regarding EU commissioning in this field.

Key issues raised included the deployment of “non-specialist
contractors” skilled at dealing with institutions’
complicated procurement procedures, and inefficient use of
funding.

The Committee concluded that the DfID should examine these
allegations, and push for large-scale reform.

A DfID spokeswoman told The Guardian the UK had created and
implemented over 37 projects to strengthen parliaments in 21
foreign states in an effort to cultivate greater accountability
and equality.

She confirmed concerns highlighted in the report regarding the
EU’s use of development funding would be broached with the
European Commission.